Representative Doug Collins appears on Fox News with Maria Bartiromo to discuss the specific strategy behind the Pelosi-Shiff and Lawfare ongoing impeachment effort.
Collins explains why Adam Schiff is holding hearings behind closed doors so they can selectively leak out information that supports the Democrat narrative of impeachment, while also hiding the evidence that refutes their construct.  Additionally, Rep Collins explains his expectations for the upcoming FISA review by Inspector General Horowitz.
[wpvideo vWqlCZkB]
Speaker Pelosi, with forethought and planning by the Lawfare Alliance, is intentionally using non-jurisdictional committees because she is manipulating the process.  It’s the same reason why the House Intelligence, House Foreign Affairs and House Oversight committees cannot legally send out “Impeachment-based Subpoenas“; they have no impeachment jurisdiction.  {Go Deep} and {Go Deep} to understand why.
The “impeachment” subpoenas’ are not technically subpoenas because the basis for the requests, impeachment inquiry, is not within the jurisdiction of the three committees. So the committees are sending out demand letters, calling them subpoenas (media complies with the narrative), and hoping the electorate do not catch on to the scheme.
The House democrats will keep doing this until someone in the media begins to hit them with hard questions that expose the nonsense.
(more…)

There is a serious problem here…

FISA Court judges Rosemary Collyer (declassified 2017) and James Boasberg (declassified 2019) both identified issues with the NSA database being exploited for unauthorized reasons.  We have a large amount of supplemental research to see through most of Collyer’s report and we are now starting the same process for Boasberg.  However, an alarming possibility makes it important to outline a rough draft of what appears present.
Initially when Collyer’s report was declassified in April 2017 we were able to start assembling additional circumstantial and direct evidence.  Two years of releases allowed us to see a more detailed picture.
Additional documents, direct testimony from NSA Director Mike Rogers, and later connected material from court filings, classified releases and ODNI statements made the understanding much clearer.  What became visible was a process of using the NSA database for political surveillance. [SEE HERE]
With the Boasberg report we do not yet have enough supportive material to identify specific purposes.  However, directly from the report itself there is a lot of information that shows a continuum of database activity that did not stop after Collyer’s warnings, and the NSA promises.   It seems, the political exploitation continues; and with that in mind some recent events are much more troubling.
Boasberg notes the “about” query option that NSA Director Mike Rogers halted, technically didn’t stop.   Instead operators used the “to and from” option almost identically as the “about” queries for downstream data review and extraction.  The FISA Appellate Court appointed amici curiae to review Boasberg’s opinion and reconcile counter claims by the FBI.   Boasberg was never satisfied despite the FISC-R amicus assurances. His opinion reflects valid judicial cynicism within his reluctant re-authorization.
(more…)

The House democrats will keep doing this until someone in the media begins to hit them with hard questions that expose the nonsense.

Today Chairman Adam Schiff (House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence); Chairman Elijah E. Cummings (Committee on White House Oversight; and Chairman Eliot L. Engel (House Committee on Foreign Affairs) continue sending carefully worded letters under the guise of ‘subpoenas’. [Main Link Here]

Again, just like all prior examples, this is not a “subpoena”, it is a letter calling itself a “subpoena” and carries NO legal penalty for non-compliance. A legislative “letter” needs to carry judicial enforcement authority –A PENALTY– in order to be a “subpoena”.
There is no penalty that can be associated with these demands because the Legislative Branch has not established compulsion authority (aka judicial enforcement authority), as they attempt to work through their non-constitutional “impeachment inquiry” process.
It has long been well established by SCOTUS that Congress has lawful (judicial authority) subpoena powers pursuant to its implied responsibility of legislative oversight.  However, that only applies to the powers enumerated in A1§8. Neither foreign policy (Ukraine) nor impeachment have any nexus to A1§8.  The customary Legislative Branch subpoena power is limited to their legislative purpose. 
There is an elevated level of subpoena, made power possible by SCOTUS precedent, that carries inherent penalties for non-compliance, and is specifically allowed for impeachment investigations.  That level of elevated House authority requires a full House authorization vote.
(more…)

Earlier today President Trump held a White House event to sign an executive order on Transparency in Federal Guidance and Enforcement. [Details Here and Here]
In addition, President Trump took numerous questions from the media during a lengthy press conference [Video and Transcript below].

.
[Transcript] – THE PRESIDENT: Well, thank you very much. I’ll start by saying I just spoke with Boris Johnson, and we had a good talk about a number of subjects, and we’ll maybe talk about it a little bit later. But we had an extended conversation and some pretty good ideas, I think. They want to see if we can do a couple of things, and they’ll be doing certain things for us.
(more…)

The initial reports came last night indicating that former South Carolina republican congressman Trey Gowdy has joined President Trump’s legal team. Reporting today confirms that Trey Gowdy is no longer a Fox News contributor.
Specifically it appears Mr. Gowdy has joined the team as a proactive measure before a House impeachment vote which then leads to a trial in the Senate.
Given Gowdy’s specific legal skillset, and considering he is well known amid Senate chambers, I would surmise Gowdy would be the primary defense orator during a senate trial.
In that regard this is a good pick.
We do not yet know who House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will select to be the House “Impeachment Managers”, for all intents and purposes the House impeachment prosecutors.  However, given recent court positioning it seems possible Lawfare member Douglas Letter -current House counsel- will be one of the two impeachment managers.
Mr. Gowdy has a rather mixed past in the political sphere. Heck, to be direct, his history of purple ties and political fence-positioning has been more than a little annoying. However, the 55-year-old former prosecutor is a strong litigator known for skilled oration and quick thinking in verbal arguments.
A smart chap with a disarming southern drawl is an asset in court. Considering the public spectacle of a Senate trial, this strength outweighs his prior shortcomings.
(more…)

Against new information that U.S. Attorney John Durham has lengthened the time-frame for this investigative inquiry into the DOJ and FBI activity around the 2016 election, earlier today Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo revealed (and President Trump tweeted) the FISA report by Michael Horowitz will be released on Friday October 18th.
If that time-frame for the IG report is accurate, that means the classification review has been completed; any remaining classified information not specifically authorized in the inspector general report, a decision granted to AG Bill Barr, would be placed in a classified appendix that is not available to the public.

A publication date in/around October 18th would also mean the time allotted for principal review has expired.  Generally the people whose conduct is under review are granted a preview of the report that covers their activity.  The IG may or may not include any response from the principals outlined.  If the IG permits inclusion of a principal response, the IG usually outlines additional information to rebut or support the principal position.
A final draft is assembled only after the OIG administrative referencer makes a final review of all statements of fact and provides citations therein.  Then things get a little troublesome…
If Bartiromo is accurate as to the size of the IG report; this is where the ‘summary of IG findings‘ becomes critical.  Generally speaking the IG writes the full body of the report, but may not author the ‘executive summary’.  The executive summary can be written by administrative state career officials and their priority is institutional preservation.  If they are motivated to shape public opinion of the report content, the executive summary may be written to dilute institutional damage outlined within the main body of the report.
(more…)

President Trump’s attorney Rudy Giuliani and former U.S. Attorney Joe diGenova appeared together on Fox News to discuss the ongoing impeachment effort by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House democrats.

(more…)

One aspect heavily monitored by CTH surrounds frequent redactions to ongoing DOJ releases that touch upon former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. An additionally annoying thorn would be the continued holding-back of Rosenstein’s expanded scope memos authorizing the expansion of Mueller’s special investigation. [They remain hidden]
The reason Rosenstein’s behavior remains a high-priority is simply because without his ongoing participation and authorization in 2017 and 2018 the Weissmann/Mueller probe would not have been able to continue.
Rosenstein is a central character to all events, and at the end of the Mueller investigation -through today- the DOJ continued to black out any information that evidenced Rosenstein’s duplicitous activity.
As a result, CTH has viewed the transparent DOJ redactions as a purposeful effort to protect Rosenstein.  However, recent activity and media reports outline the possibility of another motive.  Perhaps, just perhaps, the evidence of Rosenstein’s activities has been withheld because Rosenstein is a subject of the Durham investigation.  First watch this:

.
Setting aside the common mistake in part of that report by John Roberts, the fact that Durham is looking into the Mueller phase of the coup (early 2017); in combination with White House officials now sharing documents surrounding the Mueller-Rosenstein White House visit; and accepting the ongoing redactions by the DOJ on material that touches Rosenstein; there is a moderate possibility Rosenstein is now a Durham target.
(more…)

Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her Lawfare allies can change House rules (they did). Pelosi and Lawfare can also change House impeachment rules (they did). Pelosi/Lawfare can change committee rules (they did); and in doing so they can remove House republicans from the entire process… Which They Did.  However, what Lawfare and Pelosi cannot change is The U.S. Constitution, which they are desperate to confront.
Speaker Pelosi’s ‘Lawfare House rules‘ and/or ‘Lawfare impeachment rules‘ cannot supersede the constitutional separation of powers.
Nancy Pelosi cannot decree an “official impeachment inquiry”, and as a consequence nullify a constitutional firewall between the Legislative Branch and Executive Branch.

~ Speaker Pelosi and House Attorney Douglas Letter ~

All of that said, there is a distinct difference between a congressional subpoena intended to compel generic testimony, and a congressional subpoena intended to compel impeachment testimony.
Attempting to compel testimony that crosses through the separation of powers; and goes even further in an attempt to penetrate the firewall around executive privilege; requires the House -or a committee therein- to carry “Judicial Authority“.
“Judicial Authority” is not absolute authority, but rather a legal reference and framework that forms the basis for an impeachment ‘compulsion demand‘ (or subpoena) by the House.  Judicial Authority is the House saying they have a legal basis to make a demand.
The reason judicial authority is necessary, is because creating Judicial authority, via the Legislative Branch full chamber vote, gives the Executive Branch access to appeal any legislative demand via the Judicial Branch (federal courts).
(more…)

There is a lot to unpack in a decision today by the Director of National Intelligence to declassify (with redactions) a 2018 FISA court ruling about ongoing unauthorized database search queries by FBI agents/”contractors” in the period covering 2017/2018.
BACKGROUND: In April 2017 the DNI released a FISA report written by Presiding Judge Rosemary Collery that showed massive abuse, via unauthorized searches of the NSA database, in the period of November 2015 through May 2016. Judge Collyer’s report specifically identified search query increases tied to the 2016 presidential primary.  Two years of research identified this process as the DOJ/FBI and IC using the NSA database to query information related to political candidates, specifically Donald Trump.
Now we fast-forward to Judge Boasberg in a similar review (full pdf below), looking at the time-period of 2017 through March 2018.
The timing here is an important aspect.
It is within this time-period where ongoing DOJ and FBI activity transfers from the Obama administration (Collyer report) into the Trump administration (Boasberg report).
It cannot be overemphasized as you read the Boasberg opinion, or any reporting on the Boasberg opinion, that officials within DOJ and FBI are/were on a continuum.  Meaning the “small group” activity didn’t stop after the election but rather continued with the Mueller and Weissmann impeachment agenda.
Remember, the 2016 ‘insurance policy’ was to hand Mueller the 2016 FBI investigation so they could turn it into the 2017 special counsel investigation. Mueller, Weissmann and the group then used the ‘Steele Dossier’ as the cornerstone for the special counsel review.  The goal of the Mueller investigation was to construct impeachment via obstruction. The same players transferred from “crossfire hurricane” into the Mueller ‘obstruction‘ plan.
(more…)